The Housing Agency wants smaller apartments built!

moxin

Thought I was reading something from the 90s but its from todays piece in the Irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/housing-agency-calls-for-smaller-apartments-in-dublin-1.1951580

John O’Connor, chief executive of the agency set up to advise the Government on housing policy and help local authorities provide housing, is urging the council to reduce permitted sizes of one-, two- and three- bedroom apartments to restart construction and make homes more affordable.

He is also seeking the introduction of a category of rental apartments that could be 40sq m – more than 27 per cent smaller than the smallest one-bed apartments allowed by the council, and similar to the lowest sizes allowed in the late 1990s. The average floor area of an apartment granted permission in the first quarter of this year was 96.9sq m. The smaller units would suit a “young mobile workforce”, Mr O’Connor said.
In 2007, the council increased minimum permissible sizes to 55sq m for a one-bedroom apartment, 80sq m for a two-bed, and 100sq m for a three-bed.

There is no shortage of land to build on in Dublin, there is still a lot of vacant sites in the inner city and beyond the canals in 2014. I wonder has the gentleman thought of this first?
And families will not live in 1990's apts and neither will single people who want better accommodation in life(his proposal will promote transient occupiers), what's wrong with building bigger apts? Profit affected?!

In another piece quoting a planner and an architect. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/more-than-10-per-cent-of-dublin-inner-city-homes-have-just-one-room-1.1951707

Tiny dwellings Between 1999 and 2004, the period of the greatest apartment output, Dublin City Council allowed apartments of 38sq m and allowed blocks where 50 per cent of the apartments had just one bedroom.

“These were probably the smallest new homes mass-built since the foundation of the State,” said Mr Kearns.

In their recently published assessment of Dublin housing, Beyond Pebbledash, Mr Kearns and Mr Ruimy argue that apartments are viewed as undesirable family homes because, for too long, what was built was low quality and too small.

Reaction to this here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/council-sees-no-reason-to-change-standards-1.1951687 Hopefully the council sticks by the present standards.

ted1

So he is advising to build shoe boxes which will create construction jobs. But has failed to realise that people don't want shoe boxes and no one would want to purchase one.

In my opinion his comments are idiotic.

dudara

Apartments need to be a viable living option when compared to houses. They need to be bigger, not smaller, and be of higher quality.

Gatling

dudara wrote: »

Apartments need to be a viable living option when compared to houses. They need to be bigger, not smaller, and be of higher quality.

Exactly there is no room for family options in an apartment

Red Alert

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Gatling

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Have you thought about getting into politics

quadrifoglio verde

For apartments to be viable alternatives to the coveted semi-d, they need to be the same size, not tiny shoe boxes. In order for that to be viable, the height restrictions need to be relaxed. There is nothing wrong with tall buildings, it's an efficient use of the land. Build an apartment block on half an acre that can house 30 families, not one that can house 30 single people. I'd have no problem living in an apartment block, where I'm not living on top of someone else.

The_Conductor

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Laudable- however, when you price the type of configuration you've just described- you'd be shocked at the cost of it.......

If you want to make apartment living a viable option- you need to have specs akin to yours- however, the Irish psyche is hardwired to look for a semi-d with front and rear garden- and even after the boom and bust- this has not been dented.........

I'd add an addendum to your wish list- whereby property tax would be based solely on the size of the property- not on its location or market value. This would stop the discrimination against Dublin property- and would put reasonable sized apartment type dwellings on a reasonable footing vis-a-vis other dwelling types.

I'd also insist all apartments be on at very least 1 public transport route (ideally several).

Victor

I think the discussion needs to be wider than just unit size. It also needs to take in things like shared space (laundry room, common room, play areas) and mix of property-type, size, ownership & ownership models.

For example, a 20-something couple with no children could use a 1- or 2-bed apartment and trade up to a 3- or 4-bed only when they have children. In the current ownership models, that largely means selling the property and moving elsewhere. Why not have it such that people own shares in a development that relates to the development, not a specific property. That might work much better for social cohesiveness and community building.

We often end up with developments that are full of only one age cohort - new areas have couples and young families and older areas have older people and empty nests. This means that the local population becomes too cyclical / tidal with shifts between no properties available and too many properties available.

I grew up in Ballyphehane in Cork. While 80% council-built housing, it never become a ghetto and didn't have quite the same problems as many other such areas, even through the 1980s recession, which hurt a lot of people hard. It probably lacked balance in green space.

* There was a proportion of private housing.
* There is a mix of property type - 1-bed flats, 1-bed bungalows, 2- and 3-bed houses and 3-bed duplexes, often on the same or adjacent streets.
* There are few cul de sacs or lanes.
* While public transport is available, it is still practical to walk to the city centre and other employment and services.
* The number of corner shops has reduced, but they were unsustainable anyway. Other retail has improved.

Admittedly, the population and housing stock has aged and a proportion of properties lack a sense of pride. Avoid the pubs though - not dangerous, just a bit cheap.

hfallada

Studio apartments are the norm in a lot of cities. A lot of people in German cities live in studio apartments. They same in cities like NYC, where NYC are trying to increase the amount of studios, in the form of micro-apartments

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/city-unveils-winner-of-tiny-apartment-competition/?hp

The fact is most people dont need the usual one bed apartment layout of small bathroom, small bedroom and small kitchen/living room area. Most young people never use a dining table and need for a living room is slowly disappearing, with everyone using laptops for watching tv rather than an actual TV.

More and more people are going to be living on their own. They dont really large one bedroom apartments with a dining area they wont use or a load of storage for stuff they dont have(an Irish home is far more minimal than what it was 20 years ago). Its far more important to have people living in the city, than in some ****ty commuter town with no public transport links to Dublin city.

18MonthsaSlave

hfallada speaks sense.

if you are living in shared accomodation or a dank musty ex-tenement and that is a huge proportion of the renting population then you'd gladly live in your own clean compact studio apartment for 300 euro a month and that is the sort of money that these studio aparatments go for in Germany with Kellar below for storing stuff and dedicated parking space.

moxin

I've lived in apartments big and small before I bought my house. In the apartment complexes i've been in, there were hardly any kids. In my first ever rental which was small, there was just 2 kids out playing in the communal courtyard over the year I was there, never noticed any other kids among the 100 or so apartments. Up it to 4 kids in another complex I was in for big apartments. I've lived in rented accommodation in houses and yes kids were everywhere. I can see why Irish parents would not raise kids in an Irish apt complex, they are simply just too small.

shruikan2553

There needs to be a mix. A compact apartment for a single person or couple would be nice, but there is compact and then there's "move the bed so I can get into the fridge". Seeing some of the bedsits in this country I'm afraid of what they would look like if they were any smaller.

Bigger apartments are also needed for families though.

18MonthsaSlave

Nobody is forcing families to live in these type apartments and if there are these type apartments then it will be easier to find a semi-d to rent as they'll be released from being accomodation sharing and return to being family homes where families can invest in the property rather than it being run in to ground by a landlord seeking to maximise return.

Mrs OBumble

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

Sorry, but I could not disagree more strongly.

Certainly SOME apartments need to be like this.

But many people who were happy enough living in bedsits but have now been forced out of them would regard the above as total overkill.

I've lived very happily with two housemates (ie 3 people in total) in a well-designed 3brm townhouse of 89sqm: each brm took a double bed and other furniture, and there is a separate utility room, hotpress, bathroom with bath, downstairs toilet, and large open-plan living area. 90sqm for 2brms is vastly overkill.

Underground carparking? Not a very clever idea in some areas - I know folks in Salthill who are currently paying a lot to deal with the fact that utilities were based underground and got flooded.

Required one carpark per bedroom? Why should people who don't drive should have to pay more for property just to meet this requirement that they'll never use.

Phone and TV line access? Who puts a phone line into an new build these days, when every woman and her cat have a cellphone? TV cabling I can sympathise with - but just the cabling, not a forced service.

I do agree that every dwelling needs a utility room, and that balcony space is ideal - but I think sunlight hours on this are far more important than size. And I agree re access to lifts in new buildings of more than three stories, and ready access to ESB etc meters.

I'm curious to know what you think is a better option that electric storage heating, in a complex environment?


And the things that I think are really important, you've totally left out:
Soundproofing
Secure mailboxes
Walkable access to neighbourhood facilities and public transport
Outdoor clothes drying facilities
Remote control front-door monitor and release.
Bookable common-room / party-room / meeting-room
Landscaped shared outdoor space which has recreation facilities (eg bookable BBQ, seating, garden plots)
Secure out-of-apartment storage for bicycles, garden tools etc.

Apartments are absolutely not one-size-fits all: what's needed for students is vastly different from single-mid-life adults, and older adults.

ted1

Red Alert wrote: »

What we need to do, roughly, to make high quality apartments for families and single people is to mandate the following:

Put a base limit on floor size to approx 90 m2 for 2-bed units.
Force architects to include some degree of reconfigurability - e.g. 2nd bedroom could be made part of open plan living space by avoiding things like curved or triangular-shaped rooms.
Every apartment needs a utility room.
Ban the construction of apartments with electric storage heating. The only acceptable electric heating is reverse-cycle air conditioners.
Every apartment needs a "front door" and also a "back door" with access to a large goods lift, and where meters for gas and ESB can be easily accessed without recourse to building staff.
Underground car park must have the number of spaces as bedrooms per apartment.
Mandated requirements for open phone and TV line access.
All apartments must have access to a balcony with minimum dimensions in the living room.

You where doing so well until the bit about car park spaces. And the heating. A CHP or some form of district heating would be better

NZ_2014

Some people just want a bed, a TV, a bathroom and maybe a small desk.

Check out pictures of yotel..mini hotels in some airports.. I could see a demand for this type of thing from people who just need a bed in a good location.

Also height restrictions definitely should be lifted.

MouseTail

Since the removal of substandard bedsits from the market, there has been a void for small entry level units. I think the proposal is to address that market need. No one is suggesting families should live in such units. I would imagine they would mostly be inhabited by young single professionals, mature students, professionals needing a bolthole in the city etc.

hfallada

Like look at modern day student accomdation. It's literally a 6 bed apartment. All bed rooms are quite large with an ensuite and there is a small kitchen/ dining area. Which is generally rarely used as young people don't really sit down to watch TV anymore. House shares are common amoung people who are often up 40 in Germany. Apartments are big enough that it works.

The problem with Irish apartments is that the bedrooms are way too small. I have been to apartments that the bathroom is nearly bigger than the bedroom but yet the living room/kitchen is massive. There is no proper proportions in Irish apartments.

Greenmachine

There are already too many small one bedroom units going for lubricious money, with a serious lack of facilities. Not sure I agree that most people living in bedsits were happy with them. They were the last bastion of the desperate and any of the ones I have seen were deplorable.

Mrs OBumble

Greenmachine wrote: »

Not sure I agree that most people living in bedsits were happy with them. They were the last bastion of the desperate and any of the ones I have seen were deplorable.

They weren't necessarily happy with the accommodation - but they were happy with the rent.

The_Conductor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They weren't necessarily happy with the accommodation - but they were happy with the rent.

Exactly.
The rent was cheap- the cost of ownership non-existent- and as long as everyone was cognisant of the fact that it was entry level accommodation for those who simply couldn't afford anything better- all was fine.

My fear is that a prescription such as is being suggested- would be held up as a new low standard that investors could make a mint from.........

If there was a similar prescription that these were for low level accommodation- at a rent of not more than 40% of the rent of unemployment assistance- so people did not view them as a get-rich quick scheme- then perhaps they may work..........

Also- I would argue- that percentages be brought in. Aka- only 30% of new build units could be of 1 bed developments, at least 40% of 2 bed units- and the remainder of 3 or larger........ We don't want 20k 1 bed shoeboxes- and nothing else built.......???

18MonthsaSlave

20k shoeboxes would free up maybe 5k to 8k other houses for retasking as family homes and put downward pressure on rents.

The_Conductor

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

20k shoeboxes would free up maybe 5k to 8k other houses for retasking as family homes and put downward pressure on rents.

I honestly- and genuinely- don't think 20k bedsits would magically add 5-8k other properties to the rental market. We have massive demand in all rental sectors- and we do not tend to accommodate people in 1 bed units......

If you added 20k 1 bed units to the market- you would free up places in our hostels, and give many people living on the streets- their own place- which is a laudable aim. Its not going to get people who are renting larger units to downsize into these shoeboxes though- I wish you were right- but I really don't see how it would happen........

We do not have a history of placing those in need of accommodation- in these type units. Cluid- and some of the housing associations- have a very good record with these type units- but not as a mechanism for freeing up other accommodation- more as an emergency mechanism to forestall homelessness, or to help people who are successfully combating addictions, or single people who have recently lost jobs and are unable to support themselves etc etc.........

There is a massive role for this type property- as a mechanism to assist with ameliorating homelessness and to assist those who are slipping through the cracks- but not as a housing standard of choice- as an emergency standard to help those who are unable to help themselves...........

18MonthsaSlave

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

Victor

Oh, one important thing. While one might rent to tenants, one gets people - with all the good and bad that comes with them.

murphaph

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

Yup. As soon as I read this thread I thought of Q216 here in Berlin. They took a derelict former office block in East Berlin and converted it into 435 40m² studios for students, young professionals etc. In fact they reject anyone on the dole who applies.

The amount of threads on here by students, postgrads and young professionals just looking for a SMALL clean, quiet space to live in close proximity to the city is proof that there's demand for such studios.

The market should really decide the size of apartments. The only thing the state need to do is abolish the stupidly low maximum heights generally currently allowed. There is lots of space in Dublin to build but it's in the air above our heads. The market here decides how big apartments should be. You get a good mix from 30m² studios to 200m² maisonettes over 2 or 3 floors!

The_Conductor

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

Stop stigmatising these properties as ones used only by the lowest social classes. In other cities in Europe they are used by twentysomethings who are starting out and want to live close to the city centre.

I'm not necessarily stigmatising the small 40m2 property class- I am pointing out that it has traditionally been used in an Irish context to accommodate those who were incapable of affording more spacious accommodation..........

If you look to Germany- or any of our continental cousins- they have 1 bed apartments in the 48-50m2 category- which tend to be fitted to a very high standard- however, they also have high prices and rents associated with them. 1 beds in Berlin- start out at around 600 per month- and go all the way up to over 2k a month- plus fees, for pretty ordinary units.

The stated aim of developing 40m2 units particularly in the Dublin area- is the replace the bedsits which were removed from the supply chain, and which had no comparable units replace them- which in turn displaced their occupants, onto the streets- and according to the various organisations- thousands into dormitory type care. Dublin City Council have been lambasted for seeking permission to erect temporary accommodation to deal with the exploding problem- and have stated that one of the big issues is a lack of the availability of affordable 1 bed units on the rental market..........

I did not intend to denigrate the 1 bed apartment sector with my comments- even now we have some remarkably well spec'ed units on the market that are highly desireable- the aim of this initiative is not to make these a new standard though- its to try and come up with a replacement for all the bedsits that were removed from the market at the stroke of a pen..........

Some well meaning meddling has had unintended consequences- and some more well meaning meddling is attempting to fix those issues- however, the laws of unintended consequence suggest we're going to open up whole new issues.........

The_Conductor

murphaph wrote: »

Yup. As soon as I read this thread I thought of Q216 here in Berlin. They took a derelict former office block in East Berlin and converted it into 435 40m² studios for students, young professionals etc. In fact they reject anyone on the dole who applies.

They are lovely- but look at the prices they're charging- the cheapest units are probably around 500-600- going all the way up to almost 2k a month (not sure how this is justifiable?)

The issue is in an Irish context- its thought these small units are a replacement for bedsits......... Obviously they're not- but its the mindset in those who are meddling in the market.

murphaph wrote: »

The amount of threads on here by students, postgrads and young professionals just looking for a SMALL clean, quiet space to live in close proximity to the city is proof that there's demand for such studios.

Big time. No one can deny that. However- aside from anything else- we need to totally rewrite the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- before we go down that road here.

murphaph wrote: »

The market should really decide the size of apartments. The only thing the state need to do is abolish the stupidly low maximum heights generally currently allowed. There is lots of space in Dublin to build but it's in the air above our heads. The market here decides how big apartments should be. You get a good mix from 30m² studios to 200m² maisonettes over 2 or 3 floors!

I agree. The meddling in the market here- has been monumental- and has totally destroyed the fabric of society- and will do for decades to come.

I don't understand our reticence towards higher density living- or indeed- or love affair with the semi-d, that everyone seems to imagine they have some inherent right to.......

We need a sea-change in our mindsets........

Qualitymark

We need a sea-change in one particular mindset: that social classes should live apart.
Ballymun was well-built, with nice apartments, but was badly maintained, I suspect because it was housing for the poor. If a proportion of the apartments had been rented from the start to students and professionals, would this have been different?
The blocks became a misery because they were badly planned as family accommodation, with nowhere for children to play safely, no green walks and parks for people to have pleasurable outings - and they were badly maintained, the lifts often broken and seldom mended, so people had to haul their groceries up flight after flight of concrete steps. And because of the lack of play space and the lack of maintenance, those stairways became ad hoc public toilets for non-housetrained youth. The place, which could have been lovely, became a nightmare.
Simple, human solutions often work.
Fatima Mansions at one stage had hordes of children racing around, terrifying everyone - I remember my car being covered with kids as I drove through like something out of Lord of the Flies, until I was rescued by the Rialto Peace Corps.
The solution was to build walls between the different flat blocks, so the kids would have to walk a couple of hundred yards each way if they wanted to meet in a big group. End of the roaming hordes within days.
Corporation flat blocks - which should be open to everyone - often become effectively ghettoes not just for one social group but for one extended family group, with outsiders forced out so that a desirable apartment will go to a cousin's or sister's family.
A solution to this problem is beginning to appear with the growth of housing associations, which rent apartments both privately and through the councils. But housing association blocks are also being built without realistic green space and play space and shop space. We really need a proper plan and minimum standards.

18MonthsaSlave

The_Conductor wrote: »

If you look to Germany- or any of our continental cousins- they have 1 bed apartments in the 48-50m2 category- which tend to be fitted to a very high standard- however, they also have high prices and rents associated with them. 1 beds in Berlin- start out at around 600 per month- and go all the way up to over 2k a month- plus fees, for pretty ordinary units.

This is simply not correct. Go to immobilienscout24.de and you'll see apartments in Berlin or Frankfurt start from under 300 euro cold and then go upwards. Also, the term "1 bed apartment" is not used. They filter their apartments based on Quadrat metres and the number of distinct rooms within the apartment e.g. 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 usw.